Let's not overlook the sexism of Australians

January 28 2003

The controversy over Darren Lehmann's outburst dealt with only half the story.

Open a copy of yesterday's Age, if you would, and on this same page, see an opinion piece by Malcolm Knox about the Darren Lehmann case. Lehmann, I'm sure you will know, is a cricketer who has recently been in trouble for describing his Sri Lankan opponents as "black c---s".

Now, please substitute the word "sexism" every time "racism" is mentioned in the article. For the statement "Racism in this country is insidious and unadmitted", try "Sexism, etc". It's almost true.

I don't really believe sexism is everywhere in Australia, or at least, I like to think it is not. But it is insidious and unadmitted. Indeed, Knox's Opinion column quite laughably proves it. "Lehmann's supporters cannot understand the difference between calling someone a c--- and a black c---," he writes. "His defenders cannot reconcile his outburst against his Sri Lankan opponents with his reputation as a 'good bloke'.

"Lehmann's misfortune is that he is the man who got caught revealing the unwitting racism that infuses not only Australian cricketing culture but mainstream Australia." And Knox's misfortune is that he is the man (but one among many) who reveals the unwitting sexism that infuses mainstream Australia.

What about that other word, so frequently used by the "good blokes"? What about the word that is so bad it can't be printed? I am referring, of course, to c---. Have you forgotten that this word refers to the most intimate part of a woman's anatomy, that defines us from the moment we are born, that makes us different from men? ");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

What does it say about attitudes to women when this word is the worst word there is?

Please note, reader, that the decision to use these three dashes is not mine. If I had my choice, I would print the word in full, and use it often (affectionately, the way some men, who love women, do) and reclaim it, just as black people have tried to reclaim the word "black". But although "f---" is sometimes spelt out, and "shit" can nearly always be printed, no newspaper in Australia is going to print the c-word.

Well, you might say, men are called "pricks", and this refers to male anatomy. But prick is not nearly as bad a word as the c-word. You see? I can print it in full, and the sub-editors won't change it. Besides, you don't usually refer to a woman you wish to insult as a "prick". In other words, you do not insult women by referring to them as male genitalia in the same way as you insult men by referring to them as female genitalia.

Oversensitive, are we? Then try this experiment: go up to a group of men and women and say: "Hi, guys." Then say to a group of men and women: "Hi, girls." Who do you think is most likely to be offended?

"We're not yet at a stage of cultural maturity where we even know what racism is," wrote Malcolm Knox. Again, substitute sexism. And, "If you want a cultural snapshot of Australia in the 1950s, look no further than our cricket", he said, pointing out the absence of non-Anglo names.

All right. If you want another cultural snapshot of Australia in the 1950s, look at the Australia Day honours list - with the top honours heavily male-dominated, and distinguishing the favourites of the (male, of course, as there's never been a female) Prime Minister. Yes, the Australian of the Year is a woman, but that is analogous to Knox pointing out "the occasional Kasprowicz or Di Venuto" in the cricket teams.

Of course, Lehmann was wrong, stupid and racist - not to mention a very bad sport - to call his opponents "black". For his information, and for others who still resort to such racist terms, it's been scientifically proved that whatever differences there are between peoples has as little to do with the colour of their skin as it has to do with the colour of their eyes or hair. (It is perhaps unlikely that Lehmann has caught up with this. There is no necessary correlation between skill at playing sport and being well educated, or having strength of character or good manners, despite the adulation sportsmen receive.)

There is racism, and there is sexism. But while Lehmann was punished by the cricket authorities for his racial slur, and has been roundly criticised by sports writers for it, none, as far as I am aware, has criticised him for the use of the second word of his insult.

It is amazing that so many people can see the one so clearly, while remaining seemingly oblivious to the other.